Evidence for the Supernatural Origin of Species

by Patrick R. Briney, Ph.D.


Already shown in previous articles, empirical evidence affirms the superiority of the creation model for the supernatural origin of both the universe and of life. In contrast, evolutionary proposals contradict scientific laws and evidence.

The precedence of empirically affirmed supernatural origins of the universe and of life suggests the reasonableness of predicting the finding of evidence for the supernatural origin of species. Such a prediction is consistent with the precedence of origin conclusions and establishes continuity of the supernatural origin model.

Originally, the term species, coined by Carolus Linnaeus, referred to individual types or kinds of organisms. Linnaeus chose the word species because it is the Latin word used in the Genesis account of the Bible. Species were considered to be genetically unrelated because each species was said to produce exclusively its own kind. Since the domination of evolutionary thought in science, the word species has gained a broader and more arbitrary meaning. Because the term species has not retained its original meaning, Creationists use the word kind (sometimes baramin from the Hebrew words bara meaning “created” and min meaning “kind”) to refer to a population of genetically related individuals. Sometimes the word type is used. Each kind of organism is considered genetically unrelated to other kinds. Because of the lack of standardization in naming species, the genetic boundaries for kinds or types may include genus and family and even as high as the taxonomic “class.” Contrary to misrepresentation of the creation model, creationists recognize that within each kind, genotypic and phenotypic changes occur. Change in organisms is a fact. The creation science model does not deny that mutation of the genetic molecule occurs and that natural selection pressures eliminate or preserve traits. Creationists recognize the wide range of variation that occurs within population kinds of organisms, including man, dogs, cattle, bacteria, fungi, and plants. In this sense, some creationists use the word speciation to refer to the variations that arise within a population type. Sometimes the word microevolution is used.

The debate between evolutionists and creationists is not about whether change occurs but rather about the degree of change that occurs. Evolutionists argue that change is unlimited. Charles Darwin, in 1895 said “I can see no limit to the amount of change to organic beings which may have been affected in the long course of time through nature’s power of selection”  (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life 1895). Creationists argue that change is limited and contained within the boundaries of population types.

The question that identifies the evidence needed to affirm the natural or supernatural origin of species is: “Is change within populations limited or unlimited?” Are populations genetically isolated and restricted to typological boundaries or are populations genetically related to all others by the process of evolutionary descent with modification? If it can be shown that change is limited, then the debate is settled that a supernatural origin is the only possible explanation for existence of species.


Evidence from laboratory experiments and observation in natural settings show that genetic change in populations is limited.

1. Fruit flies: One hundred years of genetic research on the fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster) has shown that fruit flies will remain fruit flies.

Fruit flies have been the animal of choice for genetic research since 1906 when Columbia University zoologist Thomas Hunt Morgan first proposed using them. “The fly could be bred by the thousands in milk bottles. It cost nothing but a few bananas to feed all the experimental animals; their entire life cycle lasts 10 days and they have only four chromosomes” (R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 169). Following are some conclusions from ten decades of fruit fly experiments.

“It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world, flies which produce a new generation every eleven days, they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme” Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 48.

“Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised.” Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), p. 61.

“… Dobzhansky, as others did and would do, took for granted that, with enough time, the kinds of small mutations and changes that were observed in laboratory experiments on fruit-fly population genetics were also capable of producing the degrees of differences that seem to characterize species in the wild. To be sure, there was a certain logic in the belief that it was unnecessary to postulate another mechanism for evolutionary change when one already appeared to exist. This logic also seemed to benefit from the assertion that not only had no other mechanism been observed but that no other mechanism had yet produced species. Nevertheless, it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky’s claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.” (Schwartz, Jeffrey H. [Professor of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, USA], “Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species,” John Wiley & Sons: New York NY, 1999, pp.299-300).

“Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruit flies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfully studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation. And in computer life, where the term “species” does not yet have meaning, we see no cascading emergence of entirely new kinds of variety beyond an initial burst. In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species.” (Kelly, Kevin, Executive Editor of Wired Magazine, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, 1994, Fourth Estate: London, 1995, reprint, p.475).

2. Bacterial studies also provide evidence that change is limited. Under ideal conditions, bacteria can divide into new cells in as little as twenty minutes. Literally millions of generations of bacteria have been observed in laboratories around the world often under mutagen induced conditions. Observation shows that bacteria can vary within their own kind, but the bacteria do not change into new kinds of bacteria and much less into other kinds of organisms.

Evolutionists have failed to provide laboratory evidence to show that change is unlimited. Further, they offer no confirmed evidence or mechanism whereby genetic information can increase within a population. Instead, evidence consistently shows that change is limited to variation within a given population kind. Genetic information within a population may be altered, but there is no introduction of new genetic information to produce a new kind.

There are many breeds of dogs, but they are still dogs. The same is true with cats, birds, pea plants, and beets. Evolutionist Dr George Gabor Miklos wrote: “We can go on examining natural variation at all levels … as well as hypothesizing about speciation events in bed bugs, bears and brachiopods until the planet reaches oblivion, but we still only end up with bed bugs, brachiopods and bears. None of these body plans will transform into rotifers, roundworms or rhynchocoels” (George L. Gabor Miklos, 1993, Emergence of organizational complexities during metazoan evolution: perspectives from molecular biology, palaeontology and neo-Darwinism, Ass. Australas. Palaeontols., Memoir 15:25).

Because evolution requires millions of years to occur, it is argued that unlimited change cannot be demonstrated in the laboratory. However, accelerated mutational systems induce rapid and abundant mutations in organisms with short gestation periods. The number of mutations that would require many years to naturally occur can be achieved artificially within a shorter period of time. Though millions of years cannot be simulated, hundreds of years, if not thousands, of spontaneous mutations can be simulated in the laboratory. Observation of accelerated mutational systems such as the fruit fly, at present, show that change is limited. Observations of such endeavors reveal that the viability of organisms decreases as the variation and mutations increase. Eventually, the organisms are domesticated and become wholly dependent upon man for survival.

Not surprisingly, evolutionists argue that even accelerated mutational systems are not analogous to historical evolution because evolution requires such a great span of time. Given the requirements of evolution, this explanation still fails to account for the lack of change in the time that has been allotted. This is not an explanation for evolution but rather an excuse for the absence of evidence. The fact is, unlimited change remains unobserved, whereas evidence for limited change is abundant. Excusing the absence of evidence does not support a model. Evolution is a model without laboratory support. The evolution model is resting on excuses and lack of evidence.

Evolutionists argue that the mechanisms of genetic mutation and natural selection cause inheritable change and preservation of change. Creationist do not dispute these mechanisms. But mechanisms for change and preservation of genetic material does not argue for the degree of change that can occur.

Evolutionists are in error in their leap of logic thinking that mechanisms of change justify extrapolating to the suggestion that over great periods of time accumulated changes will result in new kinds of organisms. Vast amounts of new information are required to be introduced into a population’s genetic material to produce a new organism. Such extrapolation is at best a hypothesis not a fact. Contrary to this hypothesis, laboratory evidence shows that change is limited and does not support the claim of unlimited change.

A model that conforms to the available evidence is a good model, and the creation science model does just that. The limited change observed in the laboratory supports the creation model. Models that propose conjecture and hopeful hunches in spite of the evidence are speculative and ill-conceived.

At present, laboratory evidence indicates that change within each kind of population is limited rather than unlimited indicating that organisms, in all of their forms, are not related by evolutionary processes. It is reasonable, therefore, to conclude that each kind of organism was supernaturally created. This is consistent with the established conclusions for a supernatural origin of the universe and of life.

The argument that evolution is a fact is misleading because, on the one hand, the word evolution linguistically means change of any kind, but in common usage in classrooms and textbooks, the word encompasses the idea of the general atheistic, evolutionary theory of origins of the universe, of life from lifeless molecules, and of all species. In debate, evolutionists will conveniently use the trivial meaning and say that evolution is a fact, and purposefully, if not ignorantly, avoid clarifying whether they are referring to the “general theory of evolution.”

When evolutionists say that evolution is demonstrated all the time, they mean that mutation is observed. They imply that vertical change over millions of years is responsible for all forms of life. Still, other evolutionists are more forward with their conclusions. They argue that the fact of trivial evolution such as mutation is compelling evidence for the fact that everything in existence evolved from naturalistic processes. Nobel Prize winner Rene Dubos proclaimed at a national Sigma XI conference that, “most enlightened persons now accept as a fact that everything in the cosmos, from heavenly bodies to human beings, has developed and continues to develop through evolutionary processes.” Interestingly, this dogmatic position is not shared by all evolutionists. Professor D.M.S. Watson of the University of London said, “… the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible” (Nature 124:231-234).

Thus far, all evidence suggests that change is limited. There is no laboratory evidence for unlimited change. The evidence suggests that mutation is inadequate to produce the new genes required to produce new kinds of organisms, and natural selection is inadequate to encourage the preservation of sufficient change in phenotypes to produce new kinds. The creation model is favored by the laboratory evidence.


Lacking laboratory evidence to support the claim for unlimited change, evolutionists have recognized that the fossil record is of supreme importance to their theory.

Nicholas Hotton, curator of fossil amphibians and reptiles at the Smithsonian Museum wrote: “In consequence, most living species do not in themselves show recognizable evolutionary change.” All the evidence we have of the history of organic evolution is provided by the fossil record.” (Nicholas Hotton lll, 1968, The Evidence of Evolution, American Heritage Publishing Co., Smithsonian Institution, pp. 42, 45).

British evolutionist W. Le Gros Clark wrote, “That evolution actually did occur can only be scientifically established by the discovery of the fossilized remains of representative samples of those intermediates types which have been postulated on the basis of the indirect evidence. In other words, the really crucial evidence for evolution must be provided by the paleontologist whose business it is to study the evidence of the fossil record” (W. Le Gros Clark, Discovery, January 1955, p. 7).

Darwin explained the reasoning behind this prediction and expectation saying, “ if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed….” (Darwin, Origin, Chapter Six: Absence or Rarity of Transitional Varieties).

Evolutionists predict that the entire collection of species in the fossil record will show unlimited ability for genetic change and a subsequent progression of descent with modification originating from a single cell resulting in the wide variety of species that exist today. Thus, all their observations are interpreted with this premise in mind.

In contrast, with laboratory evidence supporting limited change, Creationists propose that the fossil record should be and is best explained by organizing organisms into identifiable groups, classes, kinds, or typologies which are genealogically isolated from all others. This is reflected in the classification that exists today developed by creationist Carolus Linnaeus.

Wayne Friar describes the movement among scientists saying, “Now baraminology (with discontinuity systematics) has developed into a fruitful approach to classification within the creation model. Terminology and methodology have been developed, and the first scientific baraminology conference was held in the summer of 1999.” (Wayne Frair, Baraminology Classification of Created Organisms, CRSQ Vol 37 No 2 pp 82-91 September 2000).

“Baraminology may be thought of as a typological approach to classifying forms of life, both living and fossilized. In former centuries scientists theorized typologically more commonly than they do at the present time. However, because of the many difficulties (for example, convergences and reversals) which plague the macro-evolutionary thinker, there is a growing receptivity to typology” (Wayne Frair, Baraminology Classification of Created Organisms, CRSQ Vol 37 No 2 pp 82-91 September 2000).


Following are a few descriptions of the fossil record.

Dr. Gould, a Harvard paleontologist, wrote in his book, The Panda’s Thumb that, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt” (Gould, Stephen, The Panda’s Thumb, New York: Norton, 1980, pp 181, 189).

Francis Hitching explains in his book, The Neck of the Giraffe: where Darwin went wrong , that “when you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don’t exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn’t, or might be, transitional between this group and that” (Hitching, Francis, The Neck of the Giraffe: where Darwin went wrong, New Haven, Conn.: Ticknor and Fields, 1982, pp 56-57, p. 19). The alleged missing links that are paraded before the public and unsuspecting students are not established facts for the evolution of one kind into another but disputable and inconclusive interpretations.

In other article, Dr. Gould writes, “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” Gould, S. J., “Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?” Paleobiology, vol 6(1), p. 119-130 (1980).

More recently in 2001, Ernst Mayr wrote, “Wherever we look at the living biota, discontinuities are overwhelmingly frequent. The discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates.” (Mayr, E. 2001. What is Evolution, pg. 189).

Dr. David Kitt writes, “Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of `seeing’ evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of `gaps’ in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them” (Kitts, David B., “Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory,” Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p.467).

Dr. Denton wrote, “Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin. The intermediates have remained as elusive as ever and their absence remains, a century later, one of the most striking characteristics of the fossil record.” (Denton, Michael, 1986, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 162) Darwin explained the significance of failing to find transition evidence in the fossil record saying, “… I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume  One, namely, the distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together innumerable, transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.” (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, A.L. Burt Company, pages 312-313.) Guided ultimately by the bias atheistic naturalism, evolutionists force a natural interpretation on the fossil record in spite of the evidence. In light of the failure to find significant transitions in the fossil record, biochemist Barry Knox describes how some evolutionists are rethinking the fossil record evidence saying, “Many people suppose that phylogeny can be discovered directly from the fossil record by studying a graded series of old to young fossils and by discovering ancestors, but this is not true. The fossil record supplies evidence of the geological ages of the forms of life, but not of their direct ancestor-descendant relationships. There is no way of knowing whether a fossil is a direct ancestor of a more recent species or represents a related line of descent (lineage) that simply became extinct” (Knox B., Ladiges P. & Evans B., eds., “Biology,” [1994], McGraw-Hill: Sydney, Australia, 1995, reprint, p.663).

Let there be no doubt, evolutionists believe in their theory, and many are convinced that they have found documented transitions in the fossil record. But this is the point. The existence of these transitional forms between major groups is debated even among evolutionists. Debate and argument indicates uncertainty about an organism’s transitional role and casts doubt on the presence of transitions. If there are evolutionists who are not convinced that transitional fossil exist, then they are obviously not conclusive facts of evolution. A few questionable examples are not convincing or sufficient to call evolution a fact.

The failure to produce incontrovertible evidence of ancestral-descendent transition in the fossil record has prompted evolutionists to deny its significance. Evolutionists Mark Ridley of Oxford University wrote, “… no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.” Nonetheless, he adds, “This does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven.” The fact is, all modern and fossil populations of organisms are observed as fully formed and functional types. From an evolutionary perspective, there is no evidence of transitional forms linking one typology to another. Denton writes his opening remarks about the fossil record saying, “The overall picture of life on Earth today is so discontinuous, the gaps between the different types so obvious, that, as Steven Stanley reminds us in his book Macroevolution, if our knowledge of biology was restricted to those species presently existing on Earth, we might wonder whether the doctrine of evolution would qualify as anything more than an outrageous hypothesis. Without intermediate or transitional forms to bridge the enormous gaps which separate existing species and groups of organisms, the concept of evolution could never be taken seriously as a scientific hypothesis” (Denton, 158). Denton writes, “At levels above the species, the typological model holds almost universally. Indeed, the isolation and distinctness of different types of organisms and the existence of clear discontinuities in nature have been self-evident for centuries, even to non-biologists.” Denton 105.

The typological model of the intelligent design theory predicts and explains the gaps existing between groups of organisms. Further, the fossil record conforms to the observations made in the laboratory that suggest change is limited. Whereas the laboratory and fossil evidence supports the creation model, evolutionists have only excuses for the absence of evidence.

Dean Kenyon, professor of biology at San Francisco University, stated: “And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” (Dean H. Kenyon, affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appelants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, Oct. 1985, p. A-16).

Jeffrey Levington laments in Scientific American that, “Evolutionary biology s deepest paradox concerns this strange discontinuity. Why haven t new animal body plans continued to crawl out of the evolutionary cauldron during the past hundreds of millions of years? Why are the ancient body plans so stable?” (Jeffrey S. Levington, “The Big Bang of Animal Evolution,” Scientific American. Vol. 267, Nov 1992, p. 84).

The creation model attributes this observed fact in the fossil record as being due to the non-existence of such body plans and to the limited change that is possible in the created body plans.


The fossil record shows that populations resist change and demonstrate genetic stability. These observations are consistent with and supportive of the creationists  predictions and their claim that all species can be identified in typological categories. Evidence for typological isolation in the fossil record confirms the laboratory evidence that change is limited and the creation model prediction that populations resist change. This contrasts with the Darwinian claim that populations are ever changing and evolving.

Convinced that evolution is a fact, evidence of the fossil record has caused evolutionists to rethink their model of how evolution took place. Oxford zoologist Mark Pagel explains that, “Palaeobiologists flocked to these scientific visions of a world in a constant state of flux and admixture. But instead of finding the slow, smooth and progressive changes Lyell and Darwin had expected, they saw in the fossil records rapid bursts of change, new species appearing seemingly out of nowhere and then remaining unchanged for millions of years-patterns hauntingly reminiscent of creation.” (Pagel M. February 25, 1999. “Happy accidents?,” Nature 397:665).

Some paleontologists have proposed an explanation for why the missing links are missing and why organisms suddenly appear in the fossil record fully formed and fully functional rather than progress through gradual stages of development. They propose that organisms resist change for long periods of time and then periodically experience rapid change. This hypothesis is called Punctuated Equilibrium. This hypothesis acknowledges that populations resist change and that long term equilibrium is observed and confirmed in the fossil record. It explains that when change occurs, it is so rapid that the numbers of transitional organisms are too few to be fossilized. Therefore, evidence for the evolution of one organism into another kind is not documented in the fossil record. Observation in the fossil record reveals only populations in the stage of equilibrium after rapid change occurs.

Punctuated equilibrium is one way to explain the fossil record, but it is not evidence for evolution. It is an interpretation of the evidence. It is in fact an excuse for the absence of evidence. Punctuated Equilibrium is an admission that the evolutionary transitions between major groups of organisms are not documented in the fossil record. Though not all evolutionists admit that missing links are missing, many evolutionists and creationists dispute the existence of alleged transitional links. The debate among evolutionists over transitional forms shows that the fossil record is incomplete and disputable.


In the absence of transitional fossils, evolutionists refer to homologous structures between organisms to derive relationship. However, the fallacy of making a genetic relationship based on homology is easily exposed.

Evolutionist T. Berra explains the thinking behind homologies saying, “If you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious. This is what paleontologists do with fossils, and the evidence is so solid and comprehensive that it cannot be denied by reasonable people” (T. Berra, Evolution and the myth of creationism,1990, pg 117-119). Berra unwittingly uses an example that involves intelligent design. Rather than explain genetic relationship and descent with modification, his example shows that similarities are by intentional, intelligent design.

Woese questioned the assumption of homologies by pointing out that, “Incongruities found in organisms:  are sufficiently frequent and statistically solid that they can neither be overlooked nor trivially dismissed on methodological grounds.… It is time to question underlying assumptions” (C. Woese, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95 (1998), pg 6854-6859). In other words, if homology suggests relationship, then incongruity should suggest equally non-relationship. This reasoning simply exposes the fallacy of using homology as evidence for genetic relationship because it cannot rule out alternative explanations such as similarity by parallel (convergent) evolution or similarity by intelligent design.

Michael Denton exposed another fallacy of homology evidence saying that, “the hind limbs of all vertebrates also conform to the pentadactyl pattern and are strikingly similar to the forelimbs in bone structure and in their detailed embryological development. Yet no evolutionist claims that the hind limb evolved from the forelimb, or that hind limbs and forelimbs evolved from a common source.

“There is no doubt that in terms of evolution the fore- and hind limbs must have arisen independently, the former supposedly evolving from the pectoral fins of a fish, the latter from the pelvic fins. Here is a case of profound resemblance which cannot be explained in terms of a theory of descent.

“Whatever the ultimate explanation for this remarkable pattern turns out to be, there seems little intellectual satisfaction in attributing one case of correspondence to evolution while refusing it in the other” (M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, pp. 151 & 153).

Evolutionists cite universal traits such as cilia and the genetic code as evidence of common ancestry. However, universal traits can serve equally as evidence for design efficiency. Homologies are not evidence for descent with modification.

Carl Dunbar explains that, “Although the comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms” (Carl O. Dunbar, Historic Geology, John Wiley and Sons, 1960, pp. 47). The only connection between homologies is the premise that all things evolved. But as already pointed out, the fossil record fails to document such a relationship.


Because of the failure of the fossil record to demonstrate evolutionary relationship, some evolutionists are pursuing a fossil-free phylogenetic tree. Such an approach is called cladism. Evolutionists claimed that fossils would be found to demonstrate evolutionary relationship between organisms. They have not succeeded in doing this and the phylogenetic tree illustrated in biology textbooks gives the false impression that the genealogical relationship of all life forms is actually documented with fossil evidence. As mentioned above, it is not, and many evolutionists are looking to genetics for evidence of evolutionary descent. The famous evolutionary tree that is found in almost every biology textbook has always been theoretical, not a fact. The only connection between the organisms in the phylogenetic tree is in the minds of evolutionists and the lines drawn by artists.

Kuhn-Snyder and Hans Rieber wrote in their book Handbook of Paleontology that, “The genealogy of animal remains is mostly imperfect and incomplete. Paleontology contributes only chronologically ordered findings, as it cannot observe the speciation process. Still, on the basis of the homology research, certain finds can be logically connected and ordered in succession. The succession lines give a broad outline of the probable course of the phylogeny. All the same, the resulting phylogenetic trees remain hypothetical….” (Kuhn-Snyder and Hans Rieber wrote in their book Handbook of Paleontology The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London. 1986. p. 2).

In other words, phylogenetic trees proposed by evolutionists are organizational charts designed to conform to their model. The understanding that they represent ancestral/descendent relationships is presupposed by the theory of evolution and the assumption of phenotypic homology. The phylogenetic charts are interpretations not evidence supplied by evolutionists. Bruce MacFadden writes, “Science, like history, is composed of fact and interpretation. Therefore, it is impossible for paleontologists to identify the actual sequence of events that occurred millions or tens of millions of years ago” (MacFadden, Bruce J. Fossil Horses, systematics, paleobiology, and evolution of the family Equidae. 1992. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. P. 22).

Interestingly, the evolutionary tree based on genetic homology proposed by the cladists does not agree with the tree based on phenotypic homologies. This was somewhat unexpected because phenotype derives from genotype. Therefore, it is reasoned that homologous phenotypes between genetically related organisms should show homologous genotypes. The observe discontinuity between homologous phenotypes and genotypes shows that comparing homologies is artificial and serves only as a means of organization design not relationship.

Gavin De Beer wrote, “What mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same ‘patterns’, in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered” (Gavin De Beer, Homology: An Unsolved Problem, Oxford University Press, London, 1971, p. 16).

Likewise, the development of homologous organs fail to develop from homologous embryological regions and structures. Pere Alberch, a developmental biologist, noted that it is, “the rule rather than the exception that homologous structures form from distinctly dissimilar initial states” (Pere Alberch, “Problems with the Interpretation of Developmental Sequences,” Systematic Zoology, 1985, vol. 34 (1), pp. 46-58).

Michael Denton writes, “The validity of the evolutionary interpretation of homology would have been greatly strengthened if embryological and genetic research could have shown that homologous structures were specified by homologous genes and followed homologous patterns of embryological development. Such homology would indeed be strongly suggestive of true relationship; of inheritance from a common ancestor.” He goes on to say that, “Homologous structures are often specified by non-homologous genetic systems and the concept of homology can seldom be extended back into embryology. “In some ways the egg cell, blastula and gastrula stages in the different vertebrate classes are so dissimilar that, were it not for the close resemblance in the basic body plan of all adult vertebrates, it seems unlikely that they would have been classed as belonging to the same phylum. “There is no question that, because of the great dissimilarity of the early stages of embryogenesis in the different vertebrate classes, organs and structures considered homologous in adult vertebrates cannot be traced back to homologous cells or regions in the earliest stages of embryogenesis. In other words, homologous structures are arrived at by different routes” (M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, pg 145).

Denton concludes saying, “The evolutionary basis of homology is perhaps even more severely damaged by the discovery that apparently homologous structures are specified by quite different genes in different species” (M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, pg 149).

Cladists argue that DNA homology is the only conclusive method to establish genealogical and subsequently evolutionary progression. While DNA homology offers yet another way of classifying organisms, it serves as nothing more than a convenient means to organize organisms based on similarity in design. The hint of genetic relationship is too infrequent to serve as the rule.

Homology derives from evolution as a prediction. However, homology is not exclusive and other explanations are possible. Also, homology does not necessarily result from genetic relationship as evidenced from phenotype-phenotype comparisons, genotype-phenotype comparisons, and embryological derivations.


The absence of evidence showing evolutionary transition in the fossil record is the reason that the general theory of evolution is not a fact. Though tons of fossils have been examined for over a hundred years from all over the world, evolutionists cannot document in the fossil record the evolution of any species back to the hypothetical single cell. Instead, they offer excuses for the absence of evolutionary evidence in the fossil record. Without exception, tracing the ancestral genealogy of a species always shows: (1) that typological characteristics in populations appear abruptly fully formed and functional, (2) that populations of organisms resist change, and (3) that populations of organisms retain their distinction from other kinds of organisms. The fossil record conforms to the explanation and predictions of the creation model.

As evidence for evolution continues to elude the paleontologist in the fossil, the conclusion of Dr. Albert Fleischman, a professor of comparative anatomy many years earlier at Erlangen University rings ever more true saying, “The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are becoming more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge, nor does it suffice for our theoretical grasp of the facts. The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination.” (Fleischman, Albert. Victoria Institute, Vol 65, pp 194-195). There are many today who agree with Fleischman. Certainly evidence for horizontal change within kinds is observed, but only the underlying assumptions of evolution ties together the populations of kinds.

The insistence by Darwinian evolutionists that transitional forms exist, in spite of the contrary opinions of evolutionary colleagues, shows their biased treatment of the data. The model of Darwinian evolution proposes that because organisms are continually changing, there should be evidence of continuous change. Other evolutionists have concluded that the Darwinian model does not accurately predict or explain the data. Rather than manipulate or twist data into conformity with the Darwinian model, some evolutionists have courageously challenged the popular model to conform to data. In light of the facts of the fossil record, one can conclude that adherence to the evolutionist’s fossil tree is the result of a naturalistic philosophy and not physical evidence. Phillip E. Johnson of the Berkeley law school says, “Darwinism is not so much an inference from the facts as a deduction from naturalistic philosophy” (Johnson, Phillip. The evolution backlash: Debunking Darwin. World, March 1997 p. 13). John Weister, chairman of the Science Education Commission of the American Scientific Affiliation, states more bluntly that “Darwinism is naturalism masquerading as science” (World 1997, p. 14).

The significance of not finding fossils that document descent with modification is that evolution fails to provide the evidence for unlimited change. Remember, the crucial point between creation and evolution is whether genetic change is limited or unlimited. Laboratory evidence shows that change is limited and the fossil record affirms this observation. Laboratory and fossil evidences support the creation model.

Share Button